And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:58:33 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:53:00 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:43:33 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:16:16 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless you're a zombie, or a ghost, or a vampire, or a werewolf... oh
>>>> wait
>>>> that last one's just stupid; werewolves aren't dead.
>>>
>>> Are you some sort of ist? What do you have against Duppies?
>>
>> Nothing, I think they're great for an aquarium.
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duppy

Oh *D*uppy I read *G*uppy, well actually I didn't I just thought it would  
be funny.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:11:35 -0000, Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:20:48 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:04:34 -0000, bluetree <nomail@nomail> did
>> spake, saying:
>>
>>> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>> > They don't call me Saint Stephen for nothing.
>>>> >
>>>> > Actually they don't call me Saint Stephen at all, at all :)
>>>>
>>>> Ah St. St. so good they named him twice:-P
>>>
>>> It's the same as with other titles. The more Saints he get the more
>>> miracles he
>>> can do, am I right? ;)
>>
>> So miraculous they named a road after him - St. St. St.
>>
>> --
>> Phil Cook
>
> I'm still here you know. I do take sugar.

You know if you keep acting like that they'll rename the road and you'll  
be back to plain old Sir Saint Stephen :-P

Heh Saint Stephen Street Apartments - St.St.St.Apts.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:54:30 -0000, bluetree <nomail@nomail> did  
spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> > Whew. Strange diaglogue.
>>
>> Except in the case of Heaven they thought they wanted to be there; a bit
>> like Fawlty Towers I suppose.
>
> Then I don't want to check in please.

Ah but that presupposes the knowledge that you know what it's like before  
you get there :-)

>> > At least I found the reason: Your showel was too hard.
>> > No, no, don't flail again. :)
>>
>> That's okay John's flown off with and I don't have another Shovel +2
>> Against Reason as blessed by L Ron Hubbard lying around. I could just  
>> wrap
>> some wires around the handle of a different shovel say it detects  
>> "Thetan
>> Radiation" and try that if you like?
>
> Hihi, won't work, because I have an atheistic shield +20. :P

Heh it was an Attack of opportunity which negates shields, you belong to  
Hubbard now :-P

>> >> Yup you can only get into Heaven via your free will at which point  
>> you
>> >> lose it.
>> >> Hold on I'll get a shovel it'll all make sense in a minute.
>> >
>> > Heaven-one-way ticket. ;)
>
> Annual season ticket for one way, that's not fair!!

Only covers Earth to Purgatory with a stop in Heaven availible on  
alternate Blue Moons

>> Bloody GWR and you'd paid for an annual season ticket too.
>>
>> > Is there a point, where you are able to choose between different
>> > stations?
>>
>> Sort of makes you wonder what happens if you get on the wrong train. Ah
>> Rowan Atkinson as the Devil guiding people to Hell.
>>
>> "Christians? Christians this way please; yes the Jews were right"
>
> ^^
> And at last it leads to the question: Is there free will in hell? ;)

Perhaps in the same way there is in prison.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:59 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
<sel### [at] rraznet> did spake, saying:

> In article <op.t5m1okjkc3xi7v@news.povray.org>,
> phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
>> And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:22:57 -0000, bluetree <nomail@nomail> did
>> spake, saying:
>>
>> > "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>> Back to the serious bit. I think the gestalt or 'one with the mind of  
>> God'
>> is a possibiity if you think of each individual joining as a voice in  
>> the
>> choir, similar to that voice in your head telling you that you shouldn't
>> eat that gooey cream pie or take a machine-gun to your  
>> co-workers...um...
>
> This would differ from our understanding of modern neuroscience in what
> way, I mean other than the fact that, with rare exceptions, most of the
> other people in our heads don't get the final vote on what to do, but
> just chime in a lot? And what would the point of that be "for" God?
> Having billions of chattering voices chiming in about all the stuff they
> want him to do next all the time, where his sole gain from that is
> that... he gets to *pick* which ones to listen to, but without all the
> complex neurological filters "we" have that are supposed to make the
> crazier people in our own heads stay quiet. People without those filters
> (or rather with broken ones) tend to be what we call bipolar, and other
> similar disorders. One minute they are listening to the devil on the
> shoulder, the next the angel, and they *personally* can't tell the
> difference. Always thought God had to be completely nuts, by the crazy
> definitions given for his behavior, but gluing billions of people, each
> with their own collection of crazy people in them, into a mess that
> hasn't got the filters we do, would **make** any such entity nuts, if it
> wasn't to start with.

And yet explains so much if true.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:48:05 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
<sel### [at] rraznet> did spake, saying:

> In article <web.479b10cbe1d0580ad77696980@news.povray.org>,
> nam### [at] gmailcom says...
>> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> > Darren New wrote:
>> > > Then the answer would be "no", not "yes". :-) If the place doesn't
>> > > exist, then asking whether there's something at that place would be
>> > > answered "no". Do the taxi drivers on the moon accept tips? No.
>> >
>> > According to my philosophy 101 teacher at university, you can validly
>> > say anything about nonexistent things.  All unicorns are chartreuse,  
>> no
>> > harbl which has a frobotz is virpo, that kind of thing.  So the taxi
>> > drivers on the moon both do and do not accept tips.
>>
>> indeed.  Wu/Mu is the correct answer to such questions.
>>
>
> Actually, this reminds me of a blog entry I read today which talked
> about the difference between lies, bullshit and spin.
>
> Basically:
>
> Lies - Require you know the truth, so you can try to convince people
> that something else is true instead. This is easily refuted, since all
> someone has to do it prove that the truth is something else.

No, lying requires you to think you know the truth then claim something  
else. If I 'knew' the Moon was made of cheese then *I'd* be lying if I  
told you was it was just a lump of rock.

> Bullshit - Making things up, out of thin air, with no basis in truth at
> all, other than needed to convince someone that it *might* be somehow
> connected to the real world. This is damn hard to refute, since how do
> you prove that there *is* truth, as related to something that doesn't
> exist? How do you even prove that it didn't happen, didn't exist, etc.?

Again not quite. Bullshit is indeed fabrication from thin air, but like  
lying doesn't necessarily preclude the person hitting upon the truth; just  
that they wouldn't know it.

> Spin - Something between the two above. Its purpose is to lie where
> needed to imply that black is white, up is down, right is left, good is
> bad, etc., but with a large dribble of bullshit added in, which can't be
> easily refuted, disproven or tested. Thus, the lies get support from the
> stuff you can't examine, while the stuff you can't examine is made more
> probable by the suggestion that "if it exists/happened/etc.", the lies
> must be true. As a result, the nuts that believe the bullshit will
> believe both, and the people that fall for the lies are more easily led
> into also accepting the bullshit.

Like Darren I'd suggest spin is more the rearrangement of facts to point  
to the conclusion you want it to. No lies and no bullshit.

Robin Hood wasn't an outlaw he was fighting for the common man against a  
tyrannical system.
Robin Hood was an outlaw who robbed people of their hard-earned goods and  
killed men acting in their sworn duty to protect the country.

It would be amusing if they'd had both the Sun and the Daily Mail around  
in those days.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:15:28 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

>
>What's about white coffee?

Yes I take my white coffee without milk or sugar.

>BTW have you also tried green tea with gold? :)

I should be so rich :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:59:54 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>You know if you keep acting like that they'll rename the road and you'll  
>be back to plain old Sir Saint Stephen :-P

Should that not be Saint Sir Stephen? But with my attitude to the "knobility"
(the K is silent) I think that I would refuse the honour. I'll keep the Saint
bit, I think it suits me. What do you think? Does my ego look big in this?

>Heh Saint Stephen Street Apartments - St.St.St.Apts.
>

LOL
http://stephenstreetcondos.com/index.htm

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:57:39 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>Oh *D*uppy I read *G*uppy, well actually I didn't I just thought it would  
>be funny.

Keep trying :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

In article <op.t5opm6cgc3xi7v@news.povray.org>, 
phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
> And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:48:05 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
> <sel### [at] rraznet> did spake, saying:
> 
> > In article <web.479b10cbe1d0580ad77696980@news.povray.org>,
> > nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> >> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> > Darren New wrote:
> >> > > Then the answer would be "no", not "yes". :-) If the place doesn't
> >> > > exist, then asking whether there's something at that place would b
e
> >> > > answered "no". Do the taxi drivers on the moon accept tips? No.
> >> >
> >> > According to my philosophy 101 teacher at university, you can validl
y
> >> > say anything about nonexistent things.  All unicorns are chartreuse,
  
> >> no
> >> > harbl which has a frobotz is virpo, that kind of thing.  So the taxi
> >> > drivers on the moon both do and do not accept tips.
> >>
> >> indeed.  Wu/Mu is the correct answer to such questions.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, this reminds me of a blog entry I read today which talked
> > about the difference between lies, bullshit and spin.
> >
> > Basically:
> >
> > Lies - Require you know the truth, so you can try to convince people
> > that something else is true instead. This is easily refuted, since all
> > someone has to do it prove that the truth is something else.
> 
> No, lying requires you to think you know the truth then claim something 
 
> else. If I 'knew' the Moon was made of cheese then *I'd* be lying if I 
 
> told you was it was just a lump of rock.
> 
> > Bullshit - Making things up, out of thin air, with no basis in truth at
> > all, other than needed to convince someone that it *might* be somehow
> > connected to the real world. This is damn hard to refute, since how do
> > you prove that there *is* truth, as related to something that doesn't
> > exist? How do you even prove that it didn't happen, didn't exist, etc.?
> 
> Again not quite. Bullshit is indeed fabrication from thin air, but like 
 
> lying doesn't necessarily preclude the person hitting upon the truth; jus
t  
> that they wouldn't know it.
> 
> > Spin - Something between the two above. Its purpose is to lie where
> > needed to imply that black is white, up is down, right is left, good is
> > bad, etc., but with a large dribble of bullshit added in, which can't b
e
> > easily refuted, disproven or tested. Thus, the lies get support from th
e
> > stuff you can't examine, while the stuff you can't examine is made more
> > probable by the suggestion that "if it exists/happened/etc.", the lies
> > must be true. As a result, the nuts that believe the bullshit will
> > believe both, and the people that fall for the lies are more easily led
> > into also accepting the bullshit.
> 
> Like Darren I'd suggest spin is more the rearrangement of facts to point 
 
> to the conclusion you want it to. No lies and no bullshit.
> 
> Robin Hood wasn't an outlaw he was fighting for the common man against a 
 
> tyrannical system.
> Robin Hood was an outlaw who robbed people of their hard-earned goods and
  
> killed men acting in their sworn duty to protect the country.
> 
> It would be amusing if they'd had both the Sun and the Daily Mail around 
 
> in those days.
> 
Ok, then tell me how most of what gets called "spin" in politics isn't 
exactly what is described. A mix of people making up stuff to explain 
what they don't comprehend, while lying about the stuff they know, or 
think they know, is true. lol

Seriously though, you have some good points. The presumption though is 
that the liar *knows* the truth and opts to say something else, not that 
they only *think* they know. While that may not always be true, from the 
perspective of those presenting the "facts" to refute the lie, its still 
presumed to be a lie, even if they got it right *by* lying. Same with 
BS. Yes, its possible to make something up and "accidentally" stumble on 
the truth, but its rather improbable.

As for spin.. Lets put it this way instead: "To spin something you have 
to know not only how you *want* people to perceive things, but also how 
your opponent *does* perceive them. To get the right effect, you have to 
distort his view, make things up to fill in gaps you can't explain 
yourself, and, if your goal is to win, regardless of the accuracy of 
your position, lie about what is really going on." Its not really 
"spin" unless you are at least two out of three of those.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ok, then tell me how most of what gets called "spin" in politics isn't 
> exactly what is described.

"Spin" in politics is actually lying. But politicians call it "spin" 
because lying doesn't sound good.

It's like the difference between bribes and grease.

"Spin" is what the trial lawyer does. Defense calls it "the alleged 
footprint", and prosecution calls it "the incriminating glove", but 
they're both the same thing. Prosecution asks their own expert witness 
how many years of experience he has (many, but no formal education), and 
asks the defense's experts whether they have college degrees in the 
subject (none, but lots of experience).

The one currently amusing me is how many people use the expression "UFO" 
to mean "alien spaceship".    "See? The government admits there are UFOs!"

> Seriously though, you have some good points. The presumption though is 
> that the liar *knows* the truth and opts to say something else, not that 
> they only *think* they know.

Hard to say. That would imply someone *does* know the truth.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message